I just don't see that the Judeo-Christian version of Creation has any evidence to distinguish it from any other mythological creation story, and as such does not deserve even a mention as an alternative explanation in a public school science class.

-ArtificialGrape

You'll have to take that up with the proponents of the Adam and Eve version of events. I don't subscribed to that theory.

I think that in a science class, simply admitting that the answer between intelligent design and abiogenesis is still unanswered.

Specific creation stories should be saved for classes on religion, sociology, political science, literature, history etc. but only as necessary for context. Indoctrination should be strictly prohibited.

You still haven't given us any examples of witch doctoring in your med school curricula. People believe in witch doctoring too. You really must teach the controversy if you expect doctors to be well informed.

Randy

We did receive training on many different kinds of alternative medicine and religious beliefs that influence patient treatment decisions. You should have at least a passing familiarity with them, as you will run into patients that do believe in them. I had a patient about 2 years ago with a maltoma that refused all conventional treatment, he wanted to go to Mexico to have an herbal treatment. I was able to talk him into at least getting a follow up CT in 4 months to evaluate the edfectiveness of the treatment, had I not, he'd have walked out the door never to return. His tumor had enlarged, and then I was able convince him to take conventional therapy, last time I saw him he was tumor free. Another colleague had a patient that needed a liver transplant, he was a Jehovah's Witness, and a bloodless transplant isn't really feasible, as the transplanted liver contains blood. We did some research and found that some Jehovahs witnesses believe the prohibition on blood is a cannibalism issue, and a gift freely given is different than taking flesh or blood from another, he consulted with his clergy and ended up deciding to get the liver. It's also important to at least understand the ethical considerations of parents religious beliefs influencing treatment decisions for their children. Learning that they exist and a little about the concerns of those that have different beliefs can help. I have had patients tell me they were going to leave their diabetes in gods hands, and I was able to talk them into taking a more active role in their treatment, after all, if you believe god is in control, is there any chance god sent you to me so I could convince you to take care of yourself?

Intentional ignorance of the beliefs of others is not a recommended course of action in medicine.

Shouldn't we ask void that? It does appear that blast had a point, and contrary to void's assertion, atheism does have a doctrine. "Atheism doesn't have a doctrine." seems pretty straight forward on the context issue.

It does? What is the doctrine of atheism?

Folks seem to be all about MW so:
Merriam-Webster
Definition of CONTEXT
1: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2: the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs

I've read enough of void's post to take an educated guess as to what he meant but I would of course allow him to correct me. The only way one would have a point is in regards to doctrine and atheism are the first two MW definitions (1 and 2a). Definitions 2b-2e are not applicable. Again void will correct me if I misunderstood his point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steveksux

Juggy, haven't you been paying attention? You've heard of Rick Rolling? You've just been Doc Trolled. Don't fall for it. Don't believe for a moment he's being honest here. His goal is to troll and goad people, try to get them banned. He's admitted it before. Don't enable him.

Folks seem to be all about MW so:
Merriam-Webster
Definition of CONTEXT
1: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2: the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs

I've read enough of void's post to take an educated guess as to what he meant but I would of course allow him to correct me. The only way one would have a point is in regards to doctrine and atheism are the first two MW definitions (1 and 2a). Definitions 2b-2e are not applicable. Again void will correct me if I misunderstood his point.

I'm well aware. Such attempts do not intimidate me.

Intimidate? Where did you get the idea I want to intimidate you? How would one even go about intimidating someone on an Internet forum?

Well, you made a guess, agreed.

His statement was very clear, and incorrect. The doctrine is as stated in the definition, that's all.

We did receive training on many different kinds of alternative medicine and religious beliefs that influence patient treatment decisions. You should have at least a passing familiarity with them, as you will run into patients that do believe in them. I had a patient about 2 years ago with a maltoma that refused all conventional treatment, he wanted to go to Mexico to have an herbal treatment. I was able to talk him into at least getting a follow up CT in 4 months to evaluate the edfectiveness of the treatment, had I not, he'd have walked out the door never to return. His tumor had enlarged, and then I was able convince him to take conventional therapy, last time I saw him he was tumor free. Another colleague had a patient that needed a liver transplant, he was a Jehovah's Witness, and a bloodless transplant isn't really feasible, as the transplanted liver contains blood. We did some research and found that some Jehovahs witnesses believe the prohibition on blood is a cannibalism issue, and a gift freely given is different than taking flesh or blood from another, he consulted with his clergy and ended up deciding to get the liver. It's also important to at least understand the ethical considerations of parents religious beliefs influencing treatment decisions for their children. Learning that they exist and a little about the concerns of those that have different beliefs can help. I have had patients tell me they were going to leave their diabetes in gods hands, and I was able to talk them into taking a more active role in their treatment, after all, if you believe god is in control, is there any chance god sent you to me so I could convince you to take care of yourself?

Intentional ignorance of the beliefs of others is not a recommended course of action in medicine.

Nice try.
So you admit they're not given equal weight as alternate treatment. There's a big difference between that and an actual alternative theory of medicine. which is what you're proposing for science classes by including mythology.

So at what point does medicine teach a new treatment? When studies prove its effectiveness? When some people believe something might be effective? When an internet troll thinks on the basis of nothing whatsoever that its about a 50/50 chance compared to treatments that actually have been tested?

Nice try.
So you admit they're not given equal weight as alternate treatment. There's a big difference between that and an actual alternative theory of medicine. which is what you're proposing for science classes by including mythology.

So at what point does medicine teach a new treatment? When studies prove its effectiveness? When some people believe something might be effective? When an internet troll thinks on the basis of nothing whatsoever that its about a 50/50 chance compared to treatments that actually have been tested?

Randy

Nice left turn. It's probably not a good idea to apply one strategy to everything. Different approaches are necessary for different situations. Whether the universe and life was created is an unknown detail about something that happened long before your birth, even before the first vertebrate .

I know you are likely being obtuse, but for the others, I've been very clear about the detail that should be included in a science class, just an admission that it is unknown whether life was designed or just occurred due to a natural process. Your religious faith and the desire to suppress this little inconvenient truth is clouding your ability to rationally present a coherent argument. The straw man that I desire a creation myth taught in science class is as dishonest as it is impotent.

Nice left turn. It's probably not a good idea to apply one strategy to everything. Different approaches are necessary for different situations. Whether the universe and life was created is an unknown detail about something that happened long before your birth, even before the first vertebrate .

Nice deflection. Too bad you failed. Again. Pay attention, have a trusted friend explain the point if you are unable to grasp it. Why doesn't medical training teach you how to do the herbal treatments that patient had to go to Mexico to obtain? Why is your training so inferior it doesn't cover that? Answer: Because medical training, like science is based on evidence, not mythology, not baseless speculation, not ancient folklore.

Quote:

I know you are likely being obtuse, but for the others, I've been very clear about the detail that should be included in a science class, just an admission that it is unknown whether life was designed or just occurred due to a natural process. Your religious faith and the desire to suppress this little inconvenient truth is clouding your ability to rationally present a coherent argument. The straw man that I desire a creation myth taught in science class is as dishonest as it is impotent.

How much time should the science class devote to telling students science doesn't know if Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster exist or not?

You are the one being obtuse. Apparently you did not look up the difference between science and "what some people believe" as i suggested. Either that or you're the one being obtuse.

Evidence gains admittance to science class curricula. "Some people believe" gets you a consolation prize instead. Where's the evidence of a designer?

Nice deflection. Too bad you failed. Again. Pay attention, have a trusted friend explain the point if you are unable to grasp it. Why doesn't medical training teach you how to do the herbal treatments that patient had to go to Mexico to obtain? Why is your training so inferior it doesn't cover that? Answer: Because medical training, like science is based on evidence, not mythology, not baseless speculation, not ancient folklore.

How much time should the science class devote to telling students science doesn't know if Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster exist or not?

You are the one being obtuse. Apparently you did not look up the difference between science and "what some people believe" as i suggested. Either that or you're the one being obtuse.

Evidence gains admittance to science class curricula. "Some people believe" gets you a consolation prize instead. Where's the evidence of a designer?

Randy

It would take me too long to explain how to prescribe, but yes, even we recommend herbals. Saw palmetto and milk thistle are some common ones. Studies show they may be helpful, and are not harmful. There are way too many herbals to keep track if them all, micromedix is a good resource to check for drug to herbal interactions.

Look up empiric treatment and trials. It's complex. Not to brag, but I filled prescriptions for 10 years before I started prescribing them 17 years ago. The points you are trying to make are grossly off base. That's why they call it "practicing". It's as much an art as a science. Not every patient reacts the same way to the same medication. You have to be prepared for one of three main possibilities. The patient gets better, the patient gets worse, or they stay the same, or a combination of 2 to 3 of the previous. Medicines that can help one issue, can cause other issues worse or cause a new problem.

I get the final point you are looking for, an excuse to exclude a piece of information because you don't agree with it.

I'm too dumb to understand. Do me a solid and explain it to me. What is the doctrine of atheism?

Do you think that a person that truly believes there is no deity, does not experience influence on other decisions based on that fundamental belief?

Think about it from the opposite point of view. Do you think that a person that truly believes that a deity does exist does not experience influence on other decisions based on that findamental belief?

It would take me too long to explain how to prescribe, but yes, even we recommend herbals. Saw palmetto and milk thistle are some common ones. Studies show they may be helpful, and are not harmful. There are way too many herbals to keep track if them all, micromedix is a good resource to check for drug to herbal interactions.

There's that word.... STUDIES. So there's EVIDENCE that those work. Again you dodge the point. Why DON'T you use the stuff that patient went to Mexico for? Patients believe it, isn't that enough? NO it is not enough. EVIDENCE. Look it up if the word confuses you.

Quote:

So we disagree, nothing new there.

No, you're avoiding the point in an effort to deflect and try to save face.

There's that word.... STUDIES. So there's EVIDENCE that those work. Again you dodge the point. Why DON'T you use the stuff that patient went to Mexico for? Patients believe it, isn't that enough? NO it is not enough. EVIDENCE. Look it up if the word confuses you.

No, you're avoiding the point in an effort to deflect and try to save face.

So yes, nothing new there.

Randy

You're funny. You really don't understand how it works, go get a medical degree, practice for a decade or so, then come on back and try to make your point.

It's all about you only wanting your unproven belief exclusively taught due to your own bias. There's nothing honorable about hiding what is still unknown from children to push your own doctrinal beliefs.

You're funny. You really don't understand how it works, go get a medical degree, practice for a decade or so, then come on back and try to make your point.

It's all about you only wanting your unproven belief exclusively taught due to your own bias. There's nothing honorable about hiding what is still unknown from children to push your own doctrinal beliefs.

Even arguing for indoctrination over honesty is so unscientific.

Yeah, what am I thinking, having science taught in science class.

you're the only one that wants unproven stuff added to science classes. You're no stranger to dishonor. Can't answer a simple question, always evading.

Why isn't the stuff your patient sought in Mexico taught as a treatment in US med schools? Why don't med schools teach you how to do faith healing? People believe that too.

If you were honest, or honorable, you'd be able to answer that truthfully. Pretty simple answer. Pretty simple concept. Because it's not medicine. Doesn't belong in medical classes. Anymore than numerology belongs in math classes, or alchemy in chemistry class. Or unsupported mythology in science class.

Science classes should cover what they do know. Do you really feel kids are cheated in math classes lacking numerology references? Or in chemistry classes lacking alchemy?

Of course not. You're just trolling again. You aren't that stupid. Dishonest? Of course. In spades.

Honor comes from admitting when you're wrong instead of hiding.

How many times have you employed your faith healing skills you learned in med school classes again? Oh, right, that's the part you keep avoiding. The part that exposes the sham that you are. That's why you're desperately trying to avoid it. Hard to believe they don't teach you guys faith healing in med school. If they were thorough, they'd teach the controversy, right? That's your position, isn't it?

I'm not the one desperately avoiding the questions. That makes you the troll, bud. Obvious troll is obvious. Sorry to burst your bubble. Of course you're not disappointed, it's all part of troll etiquette to pretend otherwise while wallowing in dishonorable trollishness.

Why aren't you taught faith healing in med school? Why don't they teach you in med school that there may be evil spirits causing some diseases? Doesn't that belong in med school? Why not? Why does that line of questions frighten you so?

Why doesn't med school teach you that some diseases may be caused by evil spirits? Just point out what medicine does not know. Wouldn't take long to include it. What harm would it do? Is medicine biased against the supernatural?

1
archaic : teaching, instruction
2
a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
c : a principle of law established through past decisions
d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
e : a military principle or set of strategies

__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein